Court rules in favor of state in taking of property for I-69

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

For the second time in less than a month, the Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the state’s taking of property in southwestern Indiana for construction of Interstate-69.

William and Janice Boyd challenged the state’s eminent domain proceedings taking portions of real estate in Greene County owned by the Boyds. The Boyds objected, claiming the state violated various federal laws, the state’s offer to purchase was deficient, and the state sought to acquire more property than necessary.

The trial court struck the objections, condemned the property and appointed appraisers to determine the amount of just compensation to the Boyds.

In an eight-page decision authored by Senior Judge Randall Shepard in William A. Boyd and Janice Ann Boyd v. State of Indiana, 28A01-1203-PL-108, the judges quickly dismissed the Boyds’ objections. The couple argued that the interstate construction doesn’t comply with federal environmental statutes, but that challenge is to the legality of the project, not the legality of the taking. Property owners in Greene County recently made a similar objection in their appeal of the taking of their land for the interstate, and another appellate panel ruled just as the instant court has.

The judges ruled that the Boyds’ claim pertaining to the purchase offer being deficient is settled by Burd Mgmt. LLC v. State, 831 N.E.2d 104, 109 (Ind. 2005). While the Indiana Department of Transportation is required to make an offer, it is not required to prove that it did so, as the Boyds’ argued, Shepard wrote.

The COA also ruled that the Boyds’ claim that the state does not need the amount of land condemned for the I-69 project is not a proper subject for judicial review.



Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?